RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The obstetric practice environment is evolving to include more laborists staffing obstetric units, with the hope of improving quality of care and provider satisfaction, yet there are scant data on the impact of a laborist care model on patient satisfaction or delivery outcomes. We sought to assess patient satisfaction after implementation of the laborist model of obstetric care in a large urban teaching hospital. METHODS: Postpartum patients were asked to complete an anonymous survey assessing their satisfaction with care, particularly with regard to the laborist model. Survey questions included rating the overall experience of labor and delivery. All responses were based on a five-point Likert scale. Press-Ganey results were compared from before and after initiation of the model. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: Post-laborist implementation obstetric and delivery experience surveys were collected from 4166 patients, representing a 54% response rate. Ninety percent of patients reported that they were highly satisfied with the overall experience in the labor and delivery unit. A subgroup was asked to rate their experience with the practitioner for their current delivery. Of the 687 respondents, 75% answered excellent, 18% answered good/very good, and 3.4% answered neutral. Eighty-five percent of this subgroup stated that they were informed during prenatal care that they may be delivered by someone other than the practitioner or group that they saw during the pregnancy. Thirty-seven percent (n = 1553) of the total respondents reported that they had had a previous delivery at this institution, 97% (n = 1506) of whom stated "yes" to having their next delivery at this institution. Press-Ganey results were similarly favorable in both time periods (91.3 [n = 811] versus 93.4 [n = 747], P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction does not appear to be adversely affected by initiation of the laborist model. Additional research is needed to understand further the implications of this model for provider satisfaction, and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Raloxifene reduces breast cancer risk in women with osteoporosis, and both tamoxifen and raloxifene prevent breast cancer in high-risk women. However, in vitro, raloxifene does not share the pro-estrogenic effects of tamoxifen on the endometrium. Randomized trials of these agents have provided limited information about endometrial cancer risk in the general population. We sought to compare endometrial cancer risks associated with raloxifene, tamoxifen, and nonusers of a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) in the general population and characterize the endometrial tumors occurring in these groups. METHODS: We performed a case-control study of white and African American women age 50 to 79 years in the Philadelphia area. Patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer between July 1999 and June 2002. Controls were identified through random-digit dialing. RESULTS: We analyzed 547 cases and 1,410 controls. Among cases, 3.3% had taken raloxifene; 6.2% had taken tamoxifen. Among controls, 6.6% had taken raloxifene; 2.4% had taken tamoxifen. After adjustment for other risk factors, the odds of endometrial cancer among raloxifene users was 50% that of nonusers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.85), whereas tamoxifen users had three times the odds of developing endometrial cancer compared with raloxifene users (OR = 3.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 6.9). Endometrial tumors in raloxifene users had a more favorable histologic profile and were predominantly International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I and low grade. CONCLUSION: Raloxifene users had significantly lower odds of endometrial cancer compared with both tamoxifen users and SERM nonusers, suggesting a role for raloxifene in endometrial cancer prevention and individualization of SERM therapy.
